dionisDespite that claim, not the worst way of guessing.
During Glasnost high ranking Russian AF officers did claim, that the open storage of aircraft and rough runways do reduce the possible life-time of their aircraft by around ten years. Nearly all aircraft in the Russian inventory are built before 1990. All that were built for a life-time of around 20 years in Russian conditions. They will not break from 2010 nor will they in 2020, but that will not be free in restrictions and running costs.
Despite some ease in money restrictions, the Russian upgrade work is running at low pace. It does seem that the money not used-up for that will be spent for something new from 2015+.
I do believe the overhaul specifically increase airframe life, so I’m sure they run checks on the strength of the aircraft, etc. I’d also bet since they aren’t going to upgrade every last Su-27S in service, that they are going to bring in the newest ones, with the least use. Would make sense.
I’d like to see someone comment about the Sukhoi-reliance efficiency I mentioned though, (although clearly there’s one on Tupolev too!).
dionis[color=red]Jon James has been banned. Again.[/color]
Do I win a prize for sniffing him out that fast? 😀
dionisThe best attack method is always to overwhelm the defences. In the case of an ABM system that means lots of Ballistic missiles and perhaps a few shorter range cruise missiles too.
Well, as that may definitely help, doesn’t it seems the Russian Strategic forces, or whoever does this thinking for them, clearly seems to like the whole idea of avoiding missile defenses? That’s what the whole deal with the RS-24 / Bulava is, or even the Topol-M.
dionisWhat is good about the Moscow Treaty is, that it does not box in the parties. You have a reasonable number of warheads for deterrence, and you employ them how you see fit. Of course, as said before, it could be more precise and include stockpiles. And the more the parties act in its spirit and don’t try to outsmart the wording, the better.
I think that for the foreseeable future BMD favors missile deployment on submarines, simply because there are more attack-vector options with a sub (only an air launched ICBM would offer similar options) and a more difficult 360 degree job for the defense.
A heavy silo based (assumed being too heavy for road/rail basing) ICBM could of course be sent any course around the globe, but with orbital early warning the launch wouldn’t escape notice.
And a road/rail based US/Russian ICBM would still go over the pole, allowing a much narrower BMD “field of view”.Russians still seem to rely heavily on MIRVs. What’s the take of the enlightened members of this forum on the chances of MIRV’d missiles vs (multi kill-vehicle) BMD?
And another thing about MIRVs: Six per missile is an obvious choice for area attacks with max destruction, but when you count in increased survivability due to the sheer number of launch platforms and strike success chances due to increased number of attack vectors, six might be a little high with only roughly 2000 warheads. And the U.S. sure loaded theirs down to 4-3-2 RVs. Wouldn’t three RVs be the best compromise for a Moscow Treaty force?
The advantage of 6-10 MIRV capability is probably mostly that you can load up those slots as decoys! At least that’s the impression I get.
dionisThanks , AFAIK from my source the problem with Nerpa was not a financial one but was technical and which has been solved.
dionis the lease is confirmed should hit India sometime the beginning of next year , the IN chief also confirmed the lease.
what I understand is the Nerpa will have a VLS launcher for Brahmos as well , I think this SSN is custom built for India , lets wait and watch
According to this site http://redbannernorthernfleet.blogspot.com/ the new Akula-II sub is being commissioned into the Russian fleet. Are they still leasing this specific vessel to India? And for how long?
The “Nerpa” is supposed to be an “Improved Akula” and not an Akula-2, unless the upgrade work has taken it to the next “level” – if you could call it that.
Or was the sub mentioned in the link a separate Akula-2 vessel?
http://redbannernorthernfleet.blogspot.com/2008/06/first-look-11-june-2008.html
As a side note, I wonder what the confirmed armaments of each of the new light vessels the Russian Navy is deploying is.
Ie:
Project 22350 Gorshkov: SS-N-26? BrahMos?
Project 20380 Stereguschy: SS-N-25? Klub?
Project 11540 Neustrashimiy: SS-N-25 only? Future ships with anything else?
Also, what about the 12441 and 11661 projects?
dionisSomething tells me Azhar leb is Jon James hahaha 😀
—-
Side note aside, the RuAF has taking an interesting step for its future composition.
The USAF, for starters, has decided to keeps its entire bomber fleet intact (not a bad decision, necessarily), and essentially rely on two main aircraft for the future – the F-22 and the F-35, and maintain its current Super-Hornet fleet. The A-10 seems to be undergoing some sort of modernization program as well, engines, avionics, etc.
The RuAF has also decided to keep or modernize its fleet of bombers (The Backfires could be receiving an upgrade as well, anyone know the details? Tu-22M5 I believe? Also continuing the production of the Tu-160.
On the other hand, they are seeminly dropping the MiG-29 as a whole (at the moment), so are getting rid of their point-defense capability. (Perhaps a sign they don’t expect to be invaded – which is logical I think).
They are using the Su-35BM as their “F-35” per say, as a cheaper variant to the PAK-FA, both of which will be used as air superiority fighters, but with a capable ground attack role also.
For dedicated ground attack they are building the Su-34 (which seems to have commonality with the Su-35 of course, and the PAK-FA in terms of construction – which should mean the 3 jets become cheaper to build as a whole with Sukhoi in charge, in whatever 3 plants they are using for each, respectively).
Along the Su-34, they are modernizing the Su-24 to the M2 standard, and modernizing the Su-25 (similar to the US upgrades of the A-10).
Not to mention the Su-27 is being upgraded to the respectable “SM” standard, while the future of the F-15C/D and F-16 fleet remains unclear, as they are seemingly being replaced by the F-22/35 ASAP.
** For cost efficiency, I wonder if the reliance on Sukhoi’s aircraft make them cheaper to produce / maintain the fleet as a whole. I’ll leave the European fleets out, as they seem to be either F-35 or Typhoon oriented, which isn’t anything to talk about really. The MiG-31 to MiG-31BM upgrade remains an oddball, but it’s a capable jet that could be upgraded for some very serious interception capability.
Ie, future fleet compisition:
USAF:
F-22
F-35A/B/C
B-1B
B-2
B-52H
F-18E/F
A-10
F-15E
RuAF:
Su-27SM
Su-24M2
Su-34
Su-35BM
PAK-FA
TU-22M3/5
Tu-160M
Tu-95MS6/16
Su-25SM/T?
MiG-31B/BM?
MiG-29S/SMT – out?
This list of course leaves out AWACS and other EW platforms, helicopters also.
dionisYou are mistaken, i have it from a good source that they were infact delivered and operational. You are mistaken!
Who cares if the Pantsir-M was delivered? It’s a short range system meant to cover higher value assets like an S-300/400 battery, along with systems like the TOR-M2.
dionisWell atleast Su-35 Pilot does not consider EF performance in same category as F-22/MIG-31. In first flight it went supersonic without afterburner.
Star, can you post the link to the Russian article? That huge wall of text seems to be online translated.
dionisUnconfirmed information on lease of 971 to India says, that India payed for finishing of 2 boats at Amur SSZ. Nerpa is builder’s #518, the second is unnamed #519. Allegedly the second one was 42% ready in 2002. The problem is the same as with Gorshkov – Indian money has been enough only to barely finish Nerpa, the second boat has been laying neglected.
Other unfinished Akula boats – #520 and #521 at Amur SSZ and K-333 and K-337 at Severodvinsk have been used for construction of Project 955 boats.
Is the Nerpa lease even officially confirmed yet?
Someone posted in another thread that it’s definitely not going to India . . . anyone want to clarify? Haven’t seen any credible news on the matter of of late.
Also, what’s the meaning of “replacement of anti-ship missile mount” for the Nakhimov. Seems like they want at least 2 of the Kirovs, which isn’t a bad idea considering their potential as ships. Are they repairing the Shipwreck launchers? Or replacing them completely with something else?
dionisWell no, not necessarily. That’s like saying “F-16s are capable strike aircraft, a half dozen of them should be able to take out a base whether there are S-400s there or not”. You can’t just wave your hands and wish it away.
Except if it’s designed like the new Russian ballistic missiles with heavy defense evasion, I’d say it’s much more likely than not that the base would be taken out.
dionisThe point is there is no direction on how many Yasen class SSN is being built and can they sustain with this $1 billion sub .
The Victor III is a nice SSN and under certain conditions are as quite as the early LA class.
but i still come back to the same point , USN attack submarine fleet looks to remains unchallanged for decades to come in numbers or quality.
Quality you can’t really say, but most people would speculate the Severodvinsk would be just as capable as Seawolf & Virginia, and even more capable in the anti-shipping department.
Quantity, on the other hand, like I said, is not really a game Russia is interested in playing. You’ll just have to wait and see what they decide to do in the next 5 years.
dionisTrue, and the LA class has recieved constant upgrade and development work throughout its life span which is more than can be said for Russia’s SSN fleet. I am hoping and assuming that having put in place the infrastructure for refurbishing Sierra’s they do all the ones that are practical.
I’m pretty sure they always had the infrastructure, just not the money in the 90s. Now there’s not enough room at Sevmash and the yards around it to get everything done with the heaps of money that are around. There’s only 3 Sierras worth refurbishing I think anyway.
dionisThe age is not a concern , rather than how well it is maintained over its period of life , the USN subs are very well maintained , hence they have a very longer life span and very capable with upgrades through out its life.
The Russian subs were badly maintained during the past 1 and half decade due to economic crises , plus the conditions they operate are very harsh very cold and ice conditions
They have a very good build schedule and funding for it , no concern there.
Answered above , their SSBN fleet is well maintained , there is no hurry in USN to replace their Ohio fleet as they think its quite capable and silent , they will start looking at Ohio replacement post 2030
SSK can perform only littoral operation so I am leaving SSK out of picture.
YEs Dolgoruky class SSBN is someting to cheer about , they will have 7 of this class of SSBN by 2016 , per plans of 2005-201
Yes Victor 3 was a surprise because of the sudden improvement that soviets achieved over Victor 2 , thanks to Walker episode.
According to designer of Akula himself , the soviets began to tract the American SSN from Akula SSN onwards.
And according to senior US Admiral the Akula 2 had surpassed LA capability.
But no one ever stated that Akula were as good as the Seawolf or Virginia.
Well not real claims , the US has a very real advantage over Russian as far as undersea warfare goes.
Victor 3 was far better than Victor 2 , nothing as good at LA were , give me some info on Atrina
I am not
As per plan 2005-2015 they are suppose to build 2 Yasen class SSN.
Much of major procurement of USN and RuN are almost decided a decade and half ahead
Each virgnia class cost $2.5 Billion and something similar for seawolf , but that is something USN can afford , even counting a fleet of 30 Virginia and 3 Seawolf thats till top of the line ssn , no country can come closer to it in figures or capability
Right. So knowing prices of Russian vs American equipment, the Severodvinsk probably cost $1 billion? Wonder who’s winning out on this one?
As I said earlier, the SSN fleet is no concern for Russia. With a defensive fleet in mind, a good SSK can do the job just fine, for a fraction of the price.
The Victor III is as capable as the basic Los Angeles Class sub, go do some reading, most sources you find on the former will usually talk about it
The fleet that is currently active is being maintained at proper levels, including the Victors that are still in service, the rest of the vessels are being decommissioned.
Operation Atrina: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JAP/is_2_15/ai_n26991479
dionisJust wanted to know members opinion here.
US maintains a very formidable and perhaps generations ahead SSN fleet compared to Russian SSN fleet.
Now US has started inducting the Virginia class SSN in various blocks and plans to build a fleet of 30 SSN to replace the LA ( 4 already commisioned ) , they already have 3 of the very capable Sea Wolf class .
Compare that with Russia , the only capable submarine SSN for now seems to be the Akula class and Sierra class.
And the Akula 2 class as per US admission is slightly better than LA class , and the Seawolf class and Virginia class SSN are miles ahead in terms of acoustic quitening and weapon system compared to LA class.
So Russia has nothing in its fleet now which can remotely challenge the Seawolf or Virginia class SSN.
The only glimmer of hope is the Yasen Class SSN of which from all accounts only 2 will be produced by 2015.
Perhaps all the Akula and Sierra class SSN will receive comprehensive upgrade to extend its life ,some of them already did
There is no way any country that can challenge US underwater (submarine ) advantage for many decades to come either in terms of quality or numbers.
Is it already game , set , match for USN as far as its SSN fleet goes in the 21st Century ?
UAZ answered to you in an accurate manner, but I’ll add a few things.
In terms of the size of the Navy, the US is of course the largest, however, the USSR and Russia have always had a more of a “defensive blue water” Navy concept in mind.
The US Navy is not making any more Seawolf subs, of which is has 3, since they are too expensive. They’ve decided to compensate with production of the Virginia, of which there are 5 now. The rest of the SSN fleet is the older LA sub of course.
On the other hand, the Russians have a handful of Victor III subs active, equal to the LA. The basic Akula is essentially equivalent to the Improved LA class, and the Akuka Improved / II are essentially equal or better. The Sierra class is of course also on par with Los Angeles class submarines, granted, in far fewer numbers.
The upcoming Severodvinsk will be the Russian’s counter to the Seawolf and Virginia class submarine, but there can be no accurate speculation as to that’s better at what, anyone who claims they know for sure is talking out of their posterior. The Severodvinsk is claimed to be a good 4 tons heavier, though.
What both of you left out is the Oscar II subs, which are extremely capable platforms. The power of 24 SS-N-19s can’t be played down.
Since the Russians have not shown interest in keeping the Oscar II type attack sub in service, the real “future capability” of the Russian Navy in terms of SSNs will rest on the amount of Severodvinsk/Yasen class subs that would be produced.
dionisRussia calls the Typhoon the Akula, or “Shark”. Has nothing to do with the Western Akula codename for the SSN.
I’m well aware of that being Russian myself, but that creates confusion here 😉
Sign In
